Pope in Hiroshima: Use and possession of atom bomb ‘immoral’

  • Thread starter Thread starter billsherman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billsherman

Guest
In another thread, I mentioned that the surest sign of moral relativism is that your moral convictions are agreed to by a major political party or a large percentage of the population. Pope Francis, once again, shows us that moral absolutism requires holding unpopular views.

“Standing before survivors of the 1945 U.S. atomic bombings, Francis denounced the steady erosion of arms control agreements and rejected the Cold War-era doctrine of deterrence that had been sanctioned by the Catholic Church for nearly three decades.”

apnews.com

Pope in Hiroshima: Use and possession of atom bomb ‘immoral’

HIROSHIMA, Japan (AP) — Pope Francis traveled to Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Sunday to demand that world powers renounce their nuclear arsenals, declaring the use and possession of atomic bombs an “immoral” crime and a dangerous waste.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
If we hadn’t found a means of ending World War II in the Pacific, many thousands, millions more people would have died in that conflict, and we may not have won it. The Japanese were steadfast and unrelenting, even willing to commit suicide in order to defeat us, and that war may have continued for many more years, decades to come. We had to put a stop to it, once and for all, and as quickly as possible. It was a terrible way to do it, but at the time, there just wasn’t any other way.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I would tend to agree with this. It is difficult to say whether the act of dropping the atomic bomb was truly immoral due to a variety of mitigating factors. I can see it both ways. But I will not condemn those who made the decision for doing so.

As Pope Francis himself said - “Who am I to judge?”
 
Civilians were incinerated. Catholics at mass in the cathedral were incinerated.

We must never do evil so that a good comes from that evil.
 
Thank you.

Former Popes have also spoken similarly.

www.newyorker.com

What the Pope Saw at Hiroshima

Pope John Paul II spoke eloquently at Hiroshima in 1981. President Obama’s upcoming visit also calls for lofty words. But to what end?
www.newyorker.com www.newyorker.com
 
The second article is actually a letter to the editor with reply.
 
How much more evil would it have been to allow that war to drag on indefinitely, killing many more people than even those bombs did? Sometimes, one has to choose the lesser of two evils.

And notice, ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we haven’t dropped a single nuclear bomb anywhere else in the world, and neither has anyone else. Our having that technology has probably helped to prevent a third world war. Everyone knows what would happen to humanity – to civilization – if another such weapon was used. It’s too bad that such drastic deterrents are needed to keep the peace (as much as possible), but without them, our enemies would be much more emboldened and could wipe out the human race.
 
Last edited:
I cannot judge what was going through the mind of President Truman at the time of his decision. His decision was based on the information available at the time. We can only look to today, and pray that a nuclear weapon will never be used again. May the God prevent their use in the future. Pray for the souls of those involved in the development of nuclear weapons and the victims of their use. May God protect us from evil.
 
Here is a good analysis on the Church’s position on nuclear weapons from Pope Pius XII through Francis (yes, the article is from the SSPX, who are in an irregular canonical situation and working with the Church to resolve, but it is a good, brief explanation nonetheless).


Basically, Pius XII was first completely for disarmament as nuclear weapons were always disproportional in a just war analysis, and therefore we would have to choose to suffer injustice rather than use them. Through the papacy of St. John Paul II, the Church accepted possessing them for bilateral deterrence as an intermediate step to disarmament–this toleration was mostly due to the need to maintain the political stability between the two superpowers with the world in a state of bi-polarization. With the breakdown of that situation, Benedict XVI and Francis returned to the earlier position of Pius XII.
 
This really isn’t anything new. Multiple Popes have spoken about the immorality of nuclear weapons.
 
I noted the Pope steered clear of making a claim as to the morality of the bombs dropped during WWII.

He merely condemned current ownership and usage.
 
There is legitimate disagreement within Catholicism on many questions of morality, and since there are many authors for the articles on catholic .com it doesn’t violate the law of non-contradiction.
 
We can never do evil that good might come from it, but in many situations an action that results in evil may be justified in order to accomplish another good. It’s the law of double effect. I can’t directly harm an innocent person, but it may be the case that I have to do something that indirectly or unintentionally harms an innocent person. And I may be justified in doing it. An ectopic pregnancy is an example of a situation like this. Abortion is never justifiable, but many moral theologians will argue that the removal of the filopian tube is justifiable in an ectopic pregnancy even though it results in the death of the baby. The death of the baby isn’t the intention.
 
There’s a series on Netflix that covered the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki…apparently over 70 scientist working on the Manhattan Project wrote to President Truman about the morality of using such a weapon but the message was never passed on to him…of course he wasn’t to know the devastation the bombs would cause…and Japan had mobilized every man…woman…and child in Japan to fight to the death…children had been recruited how to blow themselves up against the "enemy"for their god…the emperor…it may have ended up a worse bloodbath than anyone could have imagined…even after the dropping of the bombs some Japanese officials were against surrender…apparently the target for the dropping of the bomb in Nagasaki was the Catholic Cathedral.
 
Here we go again.
Every year we end up with a thread about the bomb, Japan, and how evil the dropping of it was.

Usually twice a year. Once on the anniversary, and again in December.
 
No. It was not. Nagasaki was not even the primary mission target for the 2nd bomb, which was Kokura. Clouds and smoke from a previous nearby conventional attack obscured the city, sending Bock’s Car to the alternate target, Nagasaki. This was one example of several which made the 2nd bombing mission snake bit from the start.

Nagasaki was also overcast and the rule of engagement was a visual, not a radar drop. And the drop, whether visual or radar (opinions differ) caused a major miss of the intended aim point, which was closer to a more built-up area south-east of where it actually hit. Which, along with the topology of the city, ironically, saved lives. The bomb hit roughly a mile+ from the aiming point, and exploded over the Urakami district, which did contain useful targets, primarily Mitsubishi factories, especially a torpedo factory, which (again ironically) was the source of the torpedoes that were used at Pearl Harbor. But was also about a mile from the Urakami Cathedral (Immaculate Conception Cathedral/St.Mary’s), which was totally destroyed, with heavy loss of life.But it was not the intended target.

The letter you mention was known as the Franck Report (primarily from the Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory, (part of the Manhattan Project), and attempted to get the command authority to consider some options before the use of the bombs. It was passed by Sec. of War Stimson to the so called Interim Committee, appointed by President Truman to give advice on just such a subject. The Committee disagreed.

I’ve watched this thread, as I do all I find on the topic, watching for intrusions of history into a discussion of the morality. When I see such, I comment, as required. The use of the atomic bombs in WWII has been a major hobby of mine for over 25 years. I prefer not to have to comment. But I do.
 
Last edited:
Tell me about it. Been doing this, on this board, and its previous incarnation, for 15 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top